Appeal No. 2006-0545 Page 6
Application No. 10/019,273
time limit would have been conveyed by the original disclosure to one of ordinary skill in
the art. Consequently, the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph
of claims 17-19 are reversed.
Regarding the subject matter of claim 20, the Examiner asserts that the
specification supports only a method of making ZSM-12, not any unspecified catalyst as
recited in the claim. (Answer, p. 2).
The Examiner's position is not persuasive. As correctly noted by Appellants, the
specification discloses the preparation of ZSM-12 that is a species of a large-pore
zeolite, i.e., a zeolite having a lattice consisting of 12 tetrahedrons. (Brief, p. 10). The
Examiner has not explained why the description in the specification is not sufficient that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand that Appellants were in
possession of the presently claimed invention. Consequently, the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, of claim 20 is reversed.
Rejection under ' 112, second paragraph
The Examiner has rejected claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite. We reverse.
The Examiner asserts the language “25 hours or more” is indefinite since it is
unclear how long the word “more” is intended to cover.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007